I found this nifty little sound bite in a piece written on Dawkins.net called Reasoning with Unreason, (am I allowed to post a link to another forum, I think I am not allowed).

"Wrong. "Positive claims require positive evidence.” [Sagan]"That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.” [Hitchens]"

Now this attempts to free the atheist from providing evidence of his / her atheism.. Its interesting to note that whilst the person quotes Carl Sagan, he or she dismisses other claims that Sagan makes, for preference of Hitchens own claim that defies Sagan's below.... (That is having your cake and eating it too).

I find contradictions such as these very interesting and quite ironic, considering the title of the article it was written in. It is merely the use of the argument from ignorance, (this is not an ad hom, since that is the name of the logical fallacy used).

The only saving grace/s an atheist has in order to claim that he or she is not committing this logical fallacy are as follows

1) Show that if God existed there should be more proof of God than there is now, (below defines why)

If you look for "X" and don't find it, does that prove that there is no "X"? No.But the more you look in places where X "ought to be" in ways and at times that X "should be likely to be there," the more confidence you can have that there is no "X".

As long as the link is only to the sound bite itself. And when it's a forum link it can be a atheist forum. Linking to other Christian forums can be considered trying to take members away. We actually had a huge problem with other Christian forums coming here trying to steal our members at one time.

As long as the link is only to the sound bite itself. And when it's a forum link it can be a atheist forum. Linking to other Christian forums can be considered trying to take members away. We actually had a huge problem with other Christian forums coming here trying to steal our members at one time.

Really? Thats not very Christian of them

Yeah I'm pretty safe in my assumption that it isn't a Christian forum since its Dawkins.net ....(Though I have no idea where to get to the "forum" part, I signed up with them last night and still can't find it.)

The link isn't exactly to the soundbite rather the article it is found in. Its directly after the 2nd grey box

The only saving grace/s an atheist has in order to claim that he or she is not committing this logical fallacy are as follows

1) Show that if God existed there should be more proof of God than there is now, (below defines why)

If you look for "X" and don't find it, does that prove that there is no "X"? No.But the more you look in places where X "ought to be" in ways and at times that X "should be likely to be there," the more confidence you can have that there is no "X".

That is no saving grace. Who is to say that they are looking in the right place? Who is to say they are looking in the right way? Are atheists really even looking for God or are they just satisfied with denying Him? The answers to these questions are obvious.

That is no saving grace. Who is to say that they are looking in the right place? Who is to say they are looking in the right way? Are atheists really even looking for God or are they just satisfied with denying Him? The answers to these questions are obvious.

I don't mean it as actual redemption of sins. "Saving grace" is also used another way

A redeeming quality, especially one that compensates for one's shortcomings: The scintillating conversation was the saving grace of a bad and overpriced meal.http://www.thefreedi...om/saving grace

The context of what I meant was that for the atheist to not be using an argument of ignorance there are two options, these were the two options. "Saving grace" sounded more eloquent, I wasn't expecting someone to take me literally

I don't mean it as actual redemption of sins. "Saving grace" is also used another way

A redeeming quality, especially one that compensates for one's shortcomings: The scintillating conversation was the saving grace of a bad and overpriced meal.http://www.thefreedi...om/saving+grace

The context of what I meant was that for the atheist to not be using an argument of ignorance there are two options, these were the two options. "Saving grace" sounded more eloquent, I wasn't expecting someone to take me literally

I was reading it correctly. This argument might work for searching for unicorn fossils. We would know where and how to look. This argument does not work against God, because they cannot assert that they are looking in the right place, in the right way. How would they know where, when, and how to look?

Saving grace is an appropriate double entendre. They vainly exalt the power of their own logic and reject God, therefore their excuse prevents them from salvation, and their faulty excuse will be exposed on judgement day as well as here on this forum.

That was why I said they would need to demonstrate that we should have more evidence than we do have, (which I think is impossible )

In my mind disproving God is also impossible... But I figured it would be interesting to see how atheists attempt to settle this problem, (some may haven't even been aware of the logical fallacy, so this thread could be useful in the education of it)

I was reading it correctly. This argument might work for searching for unicorn fossils. We would know where and how to look. This argument does not work against God, because they cannot assert that they are looking in the right place, in the right way. How would they know where, when, and how to look?

I do believe that this exactly would be a very telling symptom of an unfalsifiable hypothesis.

I do believe that this exactly would be a very telling symptom of an unfalsifiable hypothesis.

You bring the word hypothesis into this as if this is a scientific discussion. It is a philosophical discussion about detecting a spiritual (non-material) being. While it is true that science cannot test beyond materialistic constructs, this does not prove that "physical matter is the only reality and that everything, including thought, feeling, mind, and will, can be explained in terms of matter and physical phenomena." which is the philosophy called "materialism".http://www.answers.c...pic/materialismThe two are often sold in the same package, and this is dishonest.

Furthermore, the Bible is a historical document which provides the basis for our beliefs as Christians (our philosophy) but this does not limit the Bible to the philosophical realm. We derive historic and scientific ideas from the Bible which can be investigated through forensic science, historical documentation, and scientific experiments.

Now does that clear up the tangled mess that public schools and many atheists make of science and philosophy?

To begin with, I would say that I agree with the three opening statements, that positive claim require positive proof, about the the dismissing without evidence and that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

What I would disagree with Dawkins is that his position does not have a positive claim. If Dawkins claims that God or gods in general do not exist, that is indeed a positive claim and requires positive proof. I do not believe in gods, and that is a personal statement of opinion, thus not a positive claim. I do not need justification to claim that, although I do have justification over why I chose this position instead of others.

The only saving grace/s an atheist has in order to claim that he or she is not committing this logical fallacy are as follows

1) Show that if God existed there should be more proof of God than there is now, (below defines why)

If you look for "X" and don't find it, does that prove that there is no "X"? No.But the more you look in places where X "ought to be" in ways and at times that X "should be likely to be there," the more confidence you can have that there is no "X".

Can an atheist please demonstrate how they are not using the argument from ignorance, (if you already admit that you are then there is no need to post here, unless you feel you want to )

First, I would simply like to point out I do like the 'saving grace' bit, I find it humorous

1) I am not sure if I correctly understand this, but what I do get is that atheists should find a way to prove that if God was real and as described in the Bible, then there would be more evidence of him in our world, such as direct divine intervention, miracles, justice being restored, poverty eradicated, etc etc etc, correct? Such occurrences would positively affect the likeliness of God's existence while the opposite would negatively affect the likeliness of his existence.Well, for starters, if God were omnipotent, omnipresent and omniscient, he would be aware of everything, capable of doing everything, and willing to change things for the good of all. If that is so, then the existence of evil poses a problem. I find that Epicurus' take on it is very good.

“Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?”

This ignores the fact that perhaps God does not know of evil, meaning that he is not omniscient, but for God to be ignorant of evil on this planet, he would have to be squarely unaware of our entire existence. It also ignores the fact that perhaps God is restraining himself for some unknown reasons. The most cited reason is 'God moves in mysterious ways.' My answer to this is either to find a way to know God better, so that we are able to avoid or minimize the circumstances where God cannot intervene, or failing that, if God moves in mysterious ways we cannot understand or predict, then why bother with God at all? The three remaining options would also be that perhaps God is not there, he does not exist, or a god does indeed exit, but he is not as described in the Bible.

2) Well, one cannot give existence of the non-existence of something, because, well, there would be nothing to show. A lack of positive evidence for the existence of gods and evidence of circumstances that would not be so if deities did exist would be as close as we could come to it.

In my mind disproving God is also impossible... But I figured it would be interesting to see how atheists attempt to settle this problem, (some may haven't even been aware of the logical fallacy, so this thread could be useful in the education of it)

I would like to point out this is the very definition of an unfalsifiable hypothesis. If there is no chance of it being wrong, then you cannot test it in any way. No matter how many times you test it, since it cannot be wrong, it will either be not looking at evidence the right way, not looking at the right time, not using the appropriate logic etc etc etc,meaning it is always the machine/method/finder's fault for the unacceptable result of God being proven false, not the fault of God not being true. Think of this: would you accept the same if someone said "I do not think evolution/gravity/atoms can be proven wrong"?

You bring the word hypothesis into this as if this is a scientific discussion. It is a philosophical discussion about detecting a spiritual (non-material) being. While it is true that science cannot test beyond materialistic constructs, this does not prove that "physical matter is the only reality and that everything, including thought, feeling, mind, and will, can be explained in terms of matter and physical phenomena." which is the philosophy called "materialism".http://www.answers.c...pic/materialismThe two are often sold in the same package, and this is dishonest.

Furthermore, the Bible is a historical document which provides the basis for our beliefs as Christians (our philosophy) but this does not limit the Bible to the philosophical realm. We derive historic and scientific ideas from the Bible which can be investigated through forensic science, historical documentation, and scientific experiments.

Now does that clear up the tangled mess that public schools and many atheists make of science and philosophy?

A hypothesis is not intrinsically scientific. For example, I hypothesize that if I do not study, I will not pas my test. No science in there.You can pose within your hypothesis that you wish to detect a spiritual non-material entity, however you will never be able to verify if you have succeeded or not in truly contacting such an entity. If you were for example to come into contact with the dead, ghosts, should of the eparted, call them as you wish, and get them to tell you information you would have no way of knowing, then yes, I would agree that there is something there. However, the moment you get knowledge of anything that is contained within this physical world, then it does tread upon grounds of scientific examination. Doesn't mean science can find the cause and understand it, but they might come to the conclusion that there is something out there they cannot measure, or study, but that there is something indeed.If the spirit//entity says what its name is, its purpose, what is its favorite color, etc etc etc, then yes, you might have come into contact with another being, yes you might be convinced that you have indeed come into contact with another being, but there is no way for you to measure if such an event truly happened, or if it was just a hallucination on your part.TL;DR, you can make hypotheses all you want, if they are not falsifiable you can never prove that it is real. You might be convinced of it, but don't expect to convince others with anything more than "trust me I know it's true."

Also, I wish to thank you for not taking the bible as the literal word of God whose every command must be obeyed to a T, and at least considering it or accepting that it is also a historical and philosophical document. There are too many people who simply hold up their bible, scream "The Truth!!!" and refuse to consider anything that is not consistent with their narrow view of the bible. Again, thank you for not being a radical fundamentalist.I would simply like to ask, how many scientific ideas were derived solely from the bible, and what were the benefits of those ideas? People may have had religious motivation to undertake scientific scrutiny of God's creation, but you will notice it is not the bible that produced any kind of solid evidence, mechanism, or understanding of the world around us, it was the effort of those dedicated men and women. I prefer to give credit where credit is due.

I was not aware of that mess, seeing as I spent all my elementary and high school years in a christian school system.

A hypothesis is not intrinsically scientific. For example, I hypothesize that if I do not study, I will not pas my test. No science in there.You can pose within your hypothesis that you wish to detect a spiritual non-material entity, however you will never be able to verify if you have succeeded or not in truly contacting such an entity. If you were for example to come into contact with the dead, ghosts, should of the eparted, call them as you wish, and get them to tell you information you would have no way of knowing, then yes, I would agree that there is something there. However, the moment you get knowledge of anything that is contained within this physical world, then it does tread upon grounds of scientific examination. Doesn't mean science can find the cause and understand it, but they might come to the conclusion that there is something out there they cannot measure, or study, but that there is something indeed.If the spirit//entity says what its name is, its purpose, what is its favorite color, etc etc etc, then yes, you might have come into contact with another being, yes you might be convinced that you have indeed come into contact with another being, but there is no way for you to measure if such an event truly happened, or if it was just a hallucination on your part.TL;DR, you can make hypotheses all you want, if they are not falsifiable you can never prove that it is real. You might be convinced of it, but don't expect to convince others with anything more than "trust me I know it's true."

My mistake, I am so used to hearing the term hypothesis given a scientific context.

In order to conclude that Christianity is false, you would have to falsify the claims of the Bible, and we have already discussed in another topic that Jesus Christ gave clear understanding of who God is. His resurrection, and other miracles were preserved in a historical document which have been verified. Death and torture endured by the apostles are only explainable in the context of Jesus Christ's physical bodily resurrection as recorded in the Bible. Now do you see why I told you to read "More Than A Carpenter"? All of this is explained. It is not just some guess work. The revelation of God has been sealed in history with NO other logical explanations that hold water. All the other logical explanations are dealt with in that book. No other religions have such extensive historical documentation, external proof, internal consistency, and internal proof. You don't have to trust the words I say as a human being, the historicity of the Bible has been preserved along with the Bible itself. If I die tomorrow, it will still all be there for you to see. Now if you don't want to see, and you don't honestly want to pursue this like you said previously, then you are wasting your time here. You can go and get a superficial understanding, a straw-man of Christianity from any Atheist site on the web.

Also, I wish to thank you for not taking the bible as the literal word of God whose every command must be obeyed to a T, and at least considering it or accepting that it is also a historical and philosophical document. There are too many people who simply hold up their bible, scream "The Truth!!!" and refuse to consider anything that is not consistent with their narrow view of the bible. Again, thank you for not being a radical fundamentalist.I would simply like to ask, how many scientific ideas were derived solely from the bible, and what were the benefits of those ideas? People may have had religious motivation to undertake scientific scrutiny of God's creation, but you will notice it is not the bible that produced any kind of solid evidence, mechanism, or understanding of the world around us, it was the effort of those dedicated men and women. I prefer to give credit where credit is due.

I was not aware of that mess, seeing as I spent all my elementary and high school years in a christian school system.

I prefer to tell you what I believe instead of you telling me what I believe. Yes it is a record of history in many cases, and there are philosophical implications of the Bible. In some cases, it literally is the word of God, where it says "and then God said". In other cases, such as recorded history, psalms, or prophecy, the words were guided by the Holy Spirit. Now, to suggest that the law should be obeyed to the T is incorrect since that ignores the New Testament and what Christ has done for us. Does this help clear things up?

The whole field of Baraminology is derived from a Biblical perspective. Christian scientists can get inspiration from the world around them and/or the Bible, and test those theories. What is so surprising about that? I can't quantify just how many scientific ideas came from the Bible.

"Wrong. "Positive claims require positive evidence.” [Sagan]"That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.” [Hitchens]"

Now this attempts to free the atheist from providing evidence of his / her atheism.. Its interesting to note that whilst the person quotes Carl Sagan, he or she dismisses other claims that Sagan makes, for preference of Hitchens own claim that defies Sagan's below.... (That is having your cake and eating it too).

"Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence!"- Carl Sagan

I find contradictions such as these very interesting and quite ironic, considering the title of the article it was written in. It is merely the use of the argument from ignorance, (this is not an ad hom, since that is the name of the logical fallacy used).

That last quote of Sagan is why we will only try to make positive claims and get evidence for them. Why? Because as Sagan says: you cannot provide evidence for negative claims, only show the absense of evidence to the contrary. You can only validate 'there are no Gods' by disproving it, you cannot affirm it. So I think that religious people have the higher ground here because at least they have a statement they might ever be certain of, whereas the attheist will never be able to prove that there are no Gods, only the contrary.

The only saving grace/s an atheist has in order to claim that he or she is not committing this logical fallacy are as follows

1) Show that if God existed there should be more proof of God than there is now, (below defines why)

If you look for "X" and don't find it, does that prove that there is no "X"? No.But the more you look in places where X "ought to be" in ways and at times that X "should be likely to be there," the more confidence you can have that there is no "X".

Yeah, considering of course that there is 'x' to find in the first place. And that is very tricky: how do you define a God as an attheist? As a supernatural being. Every test, every observation exists in the natural world... how would you make the correlation for Gods in general? Of course, this last one also counts for religious people in general. How will you prove that only your God(s) exist?

2) Show evidence of God's non-existence

Can an atheist please demonstrate how they are not using the argument from ignorance, (if you already admit that you are then there is no need to post here, unless you feel you want to )

How can you ever find evidence about the existance of something that doesn't exists?

Yeah, considering of course that there is 'x' to find in the first place. And that is very tricky: how do you define a God as an attheist? As a supernatural being. Every test, every observation exists in the natural world... how would you make the correlation for Gods in general? Of course, this last one also counts for religious people in general. How will you prove that only your God(s) exist?

Let's say that someone claims to be God, and they substantiate it with miracles. Lets say that He is murdered, and everyone following Him goes home dejected that they wasted their time believing this man to be God since He was supposed to be eternal. Now let's say that He rises from the dead, shows Himself to people in the flesh, and the people record this history and suffer and die to preach that He is God. Let's say that this history is also reported by secular writers, and this history is NEVER disputed by people hostile to this man being God. This is what happened in the Bible. There is objective evidence of the Christian God, not the God of other religions. I hope this helps.

How can you ever find evidence about the existance of something that doesn't exists?

Firstly, Christians can refer to the historical evidence of Jesus. However there is a measure of faith needed, which is ok because Religion is not science.

You'd have evidence of something that by its very nature or existence shows that that thing / idea etc doesn't exist. For me the complexity in biochemistry disproves evolution, since such complexities would not occur if evolution was correct.

Let's say that someone claims to be God, and they substantiate it with miracles. Lets say that He is murdered, and everyone following Him goes home dejected that they wasted their time believing this man to be God since He was supposed to be eternal. Now let's say that He rises from the dead, shows Himself to people in the flesh, and the people record this history and suffer and die to preach that He is God. Let's say that this history is also reported by secular writers, and this history is NEVER disputed by people hostile to this man being God. This is what happened in the Bible. There is objective evidence of the Christian God, not the God of other religions. I hope this helps.

My point was that you have the same issue as atheists concerning the monotheistic nature of your religion. You might be able to prove your God exists, but you won't be able to prove that it is the only God.

1. Firstly, Christians can refer to the historical evidence of Jesus. However there is a measure of faith needed, which is ok because Religion is not science.

2. You'd have evidence of something that by its very nature or existence shows that that thing / idea etc doesn't exist. For me the complexity in biochemistry disproves evolution, since such complexities would not occur if evolution was correct.

1. As I also told JayShel in my previous reply: you have the same problem as attheists concerning the monotheistic nature of your religion. As I already admitted: you do have a better chance of proving that a specific God exists rather than prove they don't (in general). But I agree: it is a matter of faith and I choose not to take sides in this. I have reasons to believe Gods do exist and reason to believe that they don't.

2. I'm not sure that I agree that scientific theories 'exist' at all or ideas in general. Anyway to clarify what I meant: how do you find evidence of the non-existance of say unicorns (I take this example because we all know what a unicorn looks like and that we agree it doesn't exist - if you have a better example then I have no problem with changing to that one instead as long as it is about an entity, not an idea)?

1. As I also told JayShel in my previous reply: you have the same problem as attheists concerning the monotheistic nature of your religion. As I already admitted: you do have a better chance of proving that a specific God exists rather than prove they don't (in general). But I agree: it is a matter of faith and I choose not to take sides in this. I have reasons to believe Gods do exist and reason to believe that they don't.

2. I'm not sure that I agree that scientific theories 'exist' at all or ideas in general. Anyway to clarify what I meant: how do you find evidence of the non-existance of say unicorns (I take this example because we all know what a unicorn looks like and that we agree it doesn't exist - if you have a better example then I have no problem with changing to that one instead as long as it is about an entity, not an idea)?

I'm not going to discuss unicorns.

As I said you find something that by its own nature its existence proves that the other claim cannot be true. As I said the complexity in Biochemistry debunks evolution, even though since evolution is supposed to occur so long ago, and since it supposedly takes so long, then it is unfalsifiable as there are no empirical experiments that can be done to verify it.

Yes this is much more hard to do for a supernatural entity, however lets say the existence of God is confirmed, then that would debunk Allah, etc.

As I said you find something that by its own nature its existence proves that the other claim cannot be true. As I said the complexity in Biochemistry debunks evolution, even though since evolution is supposed to occur so long ago, and since it supposedly takes so long, then it is unfalsifiable as there are no empirical experiments that can be done to verify it.

Yes this is much more hard to do for a supernatural entity, however lets say the existence of God is confirmed, then that would debunk Allah, etc.

Funny, I'm studying biochemistry and we're learning of some very specific ways in which evolution affects biochemistry. I ask my prof if she is aware she is debunking evolution.

As for evolution being unfalsifiable because it happened long ago, that is false. We can test evolution in a lab any day. There has also been man experiments with bacteria running on the order of millions of generations, which would be extremely long for us but is possible with bacteria. It's essentially providing long-term evolution in a beaker.

Empirical experiments that can be done to debunk evolution include finding species which have no other relative on this planet, and share none of its DNA with anything else. Another experiment which could debunk evolution would be if a dog gave birth to a cat. Obviously, neither has happened, and guess what? Because that would run contrary to the laws of genetics, upon which the theory of evolution is built.

Well, the existence of God confirmed would not confirm it is the Judeo Christian god. And even if it were, it does not mean either that Allah cannot exist somewhere else. After all, if God is a jealous god, wouldn't it stand to reason that there should be other gods he can be jealous of?

Funny, I'm studying biochemistry and we're learning of some very specific ways in which evolution affects biochemistry. I ask my prof if she is aware she is debunking evolution.

As for evolution being unfalsifiable because it happened long ago, that is false. We can test evolution in a lab any day. There has also been man experiments with bacteria running on the order of millions of generations, which would be extremely long for us but is possible with bacteria. It's essentially providing long-term evolution in a beaker.

Empirical experiments that can be done to debunk evolution include finding species which have no other relative on this planet, and share none of its DNA with anything else. Another experiment which could debunk evolution would be if a dog gave birth to a cat. Obviously, neither has happened, and guess what? Because that would run contrary to the laws of genetics, upon which the theory of evolution is built.

Well, the existence of God confirmed would not confirm it is the Judeo Christian god. And even if it were, it does not mean either that Allah cannot exist somewhere else. After all, if God is a jealous god, wouldn't it stand to reason that there should be other gods he can be jealous of?

Well actually the DNA is the common element, and it is mistakenly categorized as being able to show an evolutionary relationship. Do you know just how many hoops you have to jump through to try to make it look like it shows a common ancestor? The manipulation is unreal.

God gets jealous when people worship false Gods and idols, or raise the importance of things in their life above their worship of Him. The jealousness of God does not prove existence of other gods, although you could say that some of these "gods" are demons with true spiritual power, yet they are not truly gods. You are an atheist, I thought you understood that "just because you worship a god doesn't mean that they exist" such as the flying pastaoid. Just because we worship something AS a god does not mean that they have the true authority to be god. That is why I understand that the God of the Bible is God, because Jesus proved that He was God through miracles and ressurecting.

1. Funny, I'm studying biochemistry and we're learning of some very specific ways in which evolution affects biochemistry.

2. I ask my prof if she is aware she is debunking evolution.

3. As for evolution being unfalsifiable because it happened long ago, that is false. We can test evolution in a lab any day. There has also been man experiments with bacteria running on the order of millions of generations, which would be extremely long for us but is possible with bacteria. It's essentially providing long-term evolution in a beaker.

4. Empirical experiments that can be done to debunk evolution include finding species which have no other relative on this planet, and share none of its DNA with anything else.

5. Another experiment which could debunk evolution would be if a dog gave birth to a cat. Obviously, neither has happened, and guess what?

6. Because that would run contrary to the laws of genetics, upon which the theory of evolution is built.

Well, the existence of God confirmed would not confirm it is the Judeo Christian god. And even if it were, it does not mean either that Allah cannot exist somewhere else. After all, if God is a jealous god, wouldn't it stand to reason that there should be other gods he can be jealous of?

1. What were these? Tacking on the word "evolves" doesn't mean anything... (I have seen this happen in many of my lectures... add in the word evolve or evolution and that phenomena is now evidence of evolution...). I'd ask where is the evidence. Science is not a battle of words, it is about evidence.

2. I asked my lecturer that and was given an unsatisfactory answer, (it would depend on what you ask).

I asked her how do the irreducibly complex cellular systems arise via gradual evolution... She didn't answer this but instead said that because the human body is not perfect therefore there is no God... How this answer is logical is an absolute mystery since it assumes what God would and would not do, something we cannot verify.

3. ANd have these bacteria "evolved" into anything other than dfferent strains of bacteria?..... No?... I rest my case.

(different strains = different breeds =/= different species = no evolution)

4. That argument is moot since common design (cellular systems etc) can also infer a common designer... Hence the fact that things share the same DNA because they share the same cellular designs is also evidence of a common designer.

5. Actually that would confirm evolution since that is what is being said... Over time a bacteria "gave birth" to fish and a fish "gave birth" to amphibians etc etc... Hence your incredulity about this point displays how outrageous the claims of evolution actually are, thanks for proving one of the creationist points.

6. Evolution was never built on the laws of Genetics... (They were not known in Darwins time).. Have a chat with Jason and he will tell you about how Mendel (the father od Genetics) was ignored for 40 odd years since his laws of hereditary defied the concept of evolution... (until they changed evolution ad hoc)